Forum members:
I'm looking for some advice on an alleged problem with a Contax RX body I recently sold to an unknown party on an auction site. The buyer bought a clean, used RX body, along with a clean used RTS II body, and has had them both in his possession for almost two weeks now. He bought them both instantly at the asking price, ending my auctions right away. My listing offered a return privilege if the item was defective or not as described provided the item was returned in seven days. This he did not do.
As is my custom, I tested both bodies with film before selling them (actually I used the RX for a couple of event shoots with great results as well) and the test photos came out fine. These were taken within 48 hours of shipping. Negatives were scanned commercially to digital CD and they look great so no printing was involved, as did the prints and slides from my previous photo shoots.
I just got an e-mail from the buyer stating he felt the RX was "defective" because in his view, it "underexposed by 1 EV" and the meter indications did not exactly match another Contax body he owned. He wants to return the camera for a refund. This presents a problem for me because today I leave for an overseas trip and will be gone for more than two months. Had the buyer complied with return instructions, I would have been here to receive the camera and inspect it, but now I will not be.
I've been shooting photos for over 30 years now, and know that no two in-camera meters will always agree on exposure in all lighting situations. I have no control over this person's choice of film, or subject matter, or lighting conditions, nor even what he considers "proper exposure", or how he is setting the camera. I have no idea what other camera he is using as his test reference. Back-reading some threads here on the RX, I have seen discussions of slight underexposure issues, but the topics would seem to indicate that this was due to a delliberate change in the exposure algorithm on the RX and other consumer grade later Contaxes such as the 167MT and ST to provide more saturation in color slide outcomes. As I said, the test shots I took looked great to me, they were all taken in the camera's "program" mode. They look exactly like similar shots taken with my five 167MT's.
So, here's my question for anyone who would care to weigh in on this. Does anyone here have experience with this person's alleged "problem" with exposure with the RX? What do you think the odds are that this camera is actually defective given it was tested just before shipping? Is this something that is a model specific problem, or do you think he just likes the RTS II better and doesn't want the RX now? Should I offer to have him send the camera to Tocad for service and help him out with the bill IF they find something wrong with it? What would you, as a group, think I owe this buyer as an honorable seller, if you would choose to offer an opinion?
Any comments on RX exposure problems or how to resolve this fairly would be welcome.
Tom
I'm looking for some advice on an alleged problem with a Contax RX body I recently sold to an unknown party on an auction site. The buyer bought a clean, used RX body, along with a clean used RTS II body, and has had them both in his possession for almost two weeks now. He bought them both instantly at the asking price, ending my auctions right away. My listing offered a return privilege if the item was defective or not as described provided the item was returned in seven days. This he did not do.
As is my custom, I tested both bodies with film before selling them (actually I used the RX for a couple of event shoots with great results as well) and the test photos came out fine. These were taken within 48 hours of shipping. Negatives were scanned commercially to digital CD and they look great so no printing was involved, as did the prints and slides from my previous photo shoots.
I just got an e-mail from the buyer stating he felt the RX was "defective" because in his view, it "underexposed by 1 EV" and the meter indications did not exactly match another Contax body he owned. He wants to return the camera for a refund. This presents a problem for me because today I leave for an overseas trip and will be gone for more than two months. Had the buyer complied with return instructions, I would have been here to receive the camera and inspect it, but now I will not be.
I've been shooting photos for over 30 years now, and know that no two in-camera meters will always agree on exposure in all lighting situations. I have no control over this person's choice of film, or subject matter, or lighting conditions, nor even what he considers "proper exposure", or how he is setting the camera. I have no idea what other camera he is using as his test reference. Back-reading some threads here on the RX, I have seen discussions of slight underexposure issues, but the topics would seem to indicate that this was due to a delliberate change in the exposure algorithm on the RX and other consumer grade later Contaxes such as the 167MT and ST to provide more saturation in color slide outcomes. As I said, the test shots I took looked great to me, they were all taken in the camera's "program" mode. They look exactly like similar shots taken with my five 167MT's.
So, here's my question for anyone who would care to weigh in on this. Does anyone here have experience with this person's alleged "problem" with exposure with the RX? What do you think the odds are that this camera is actually defective given it was tested just before shipping? Is this something that is a model specific problem, or do you think he just likes the RTS II better and doesn't want the RX now? Should I offer to have him send the camera to Tocad for service and help him out with the bill IF they find something wrong with it? What would you, as a group, think I owe this buyer as an honorable seller, if you would choose to offer an opinion?
Any comments on RX exposure problems or how to resolve this fairly would be welcome.
Tom